Results 1 to 13 of 15
Thread: The code
May 15th, 2010 #1
Lol I was expecting something more explicit with all the trouble I had but I was wrong. Still awesome. Not sure if I should post this though seems like I'm defeating the purpose...
5, 12, 17, 29, 46, ?
5, 12, 21, 32, 45, 60, ?
X-60=(15+2) (Note the subtraction equations have always equaled 2+ the previous answer so this one is 15+2=17
(This one was hard I thought it was 75 for a while)
...and finish with:
oboe, fobo, ofob, cofo, ocof, ?
This ones hard but got it faster then second one...
obo(e)---> (e)obo---->(f)obo (Next letter in alphabet is f)
fob(o)---> (o)fob (Last letter is moved to front)
ofo(b)---> (b)ofo ----> (c)ofo
oco(f)---> (f)oco----> (g)oco= goco
Hide this ad by registering as a memberMay 15th, 2010 #2
May 15th, 2010 #3
May 15th, 2010 #4
I see you've played knifey spooney before.
If a = x [true for some a's and x's]
then a+a = a+x [add a to both sides]
2a = a+x [a+a = 2a]
2a-2x = a+x-2x [subtract 2x from both sides]
2(a-x) = a+x-2x [2a-2x = 2(a-x)]
2(a-x) = a-x [x-2x = -x]
2 = 1 [divide both sides by a-x]
May 16th, 2010 #5
@ Reymus: You divide by zero. That's a no go:
The Following User Says Thank You to Camilla For This Useful Post:
May 16th, 2010 #6
May 16th, 2010 #7
May 16th, 2010 #8
I seems like I left some older versions of the problems in the source code of that page.
That gallery itself is kind of embarrassing, I need to prune it.
Jamen jag tror att han skäms, och har gömt sig. Vårt universum det är en av dom otaliga spermasatser som Herren i sin självhärliga ensamhet har runkat fram för å besudla intet.
May 16th, 2010 #9Procrastinator
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- New York
- Thanked 759 Times in 157 Posts
May 18th, 2010 #10
May 18th, 2010 #11
Correction: The simplest sense, divide by zero is under defined, so as it approaches the zero it curves violently, getting close to zero but not touching it creating an Asymptote. This kind of creates infinity.
In computer, divide by zero would cause a program to crash. Sort of creating a infinite loop.
real numbers would be 5, -4.1, 54/2, 0, 3.3434343434343434343434.........
Imaginary number are when you square root -1 or non-positive numbers.
Last edited by Flashback; May 18th, 2010 at 08:20 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Flashback For This Useful Post:
May 18th, 2010 #12
May 18th, 2010 #13
I realize that imaginary numbers enable you to square root negative numbers. What I don't remember is, what they "say" about dividing by zero.
However, I really doubt that any creative juggling with imaginary numbers would make the 2=1 end result of Reymus' proof correct, since this would go against one of the most basic axioms of math, 1+1=2.
Please show me how imaginary numbers would solve Reymus' riddle and make 2=1 a valid result.